Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T18:19:38.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Professional ideologies and organisational structure: tanks and the military

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Jim Kemeny
Get access

Extract

Doctrinal differences within the military profession have long been a central feature of the development of tactics and strategy, and in earlier periods of history there have been controversies over the appropriate employment of certain arms and units, such as the relative merits of infantry in line or column and the use of cavalry for firepower or shock, as, for example, discussed by Oman (1929) and Quimbey (1957). More recently there has been the question as to the effectiveness of so-called ‘Strategic Bombing’, and the tendency of U.S. doctrine to undervalue the morale factor of guerrillas in their military calculations (Wilson 1970: 142–146).

Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , November 1983 , pp. 223 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © Archives Européenes de Sociology 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Addington, Larry H., The Blitzkrieg Era and the German General Staff 1865–1941 (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Cornelli, The Desert Generals (London, Kimber, 1960).Google Scholar
Bucher, Rue and Strauss, Anselm L., Professions in process, American Journal of Sociology, 66 LXVI (1961), 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, Tom, The reference of conduct in small groups: cliques and cabals in occupational milieux, Human Relations, VIII (1955), 467–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Hugh M., The Ardennes: battle of the bugle (Washington, Department of the Army, 1965).Google Scholar
Cooper, B., The Ironclads of Cambrai (London, Souvenir, 1967).Google Scholar
Crane, Diana, Fashion in science: does it exist ?, Social Problems, XVI (1969), 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Melville, Men Who Manage (New York, Wiley, 1959).Google Scholar
Elstob, Peter, Hitler's Last Offensive: the battle of the Ardennes 1944–45 (London, Secker and Warburg, 1971).Google Scholar
Farago, Ladislas, Patton: ordeal and truimph (London, Mayflower, 1969).Google Scholar
Fell, Hilary B., Fashion in cell biology, Science, CXXXII (1960), 1625–1627.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. F. C., Tanks in the Great War (London, Murray, 1920).Google Scholar
Fuller, J. F. C., Operations between Mechanized Forces (London, Sifton Praed, 1932).Google Scholar
Fuller, J. F. C., Memoirs of an Unconventional Soldier (New York, Obolenski, 1963)Google Scholar
Gillie, M. G., Forging the Thunderbolt (Harrisburg, Military Service Publishing Company, 1947).Google Scholar
Goode, William J., Encroachment, charlatanism and the emerging professions: psychology, medicine and sociology, American Sociological Review, XXV (1960), 902–914.Google Scholar
Greenfield, Kent Robert and Palmer, Robert R., The Organization of Ground Combat Troops (Washington, Department of the Army, 1947).Google Scholar
Guderian, Heinz, Panzer Leader (New York, Dutton, 1952).Google Scholar
Kemeny, Jim, Tank doctrines from the First to the Second World War, Australian Journal of Defense Studies, I (1977), 133–148.Google Scholar
Kutz, C. R., War on Wheels: the evolution of an idea (London, John Lane the Bodley Head, 1941).Google Scholar
Hart, Liddell, Basil, H., The Tanks (London, Cassell, 1959), 2 vols.Google Scholar
Hart, Liddell, Basil, H., Strategy: the indirect approach (London, Faber and Faber, 1967).Google Scholar
Low, A. M., Tanks (London, Hutchinson, 1942).Google Scholar
Macksey, Kenneth J., Tank: a history of the armoured fighting vehicle (London, Macdonald, 1970).Google Scholar
Martel, G. le, Our Armoured Forces (London, Faber and Faber, 1945).Google Scholar
Mechanic, David, Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, VII (1962), 307–324.Google Scholar
Mills, C. W., Situated actions and vocabularies of motive, American Sociological Review, V (1940), 904–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulkay, Michael J. and Edge, David O., Cognitize, technical and social factors in the growth of radio astronomy, Social Science Information, XII (1973), 25–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murland, J. R. W., The Royal Armoured Corps (London, Methuen, 1943).Google Scholar
Oman, Charles H., Studies onw the Napoleonic Wars (London, Methuen, 1929).Google Scholar
Orgill, Douglas W., The Tank: studies in the development and use of a weapon (London, Heinemann, 1970).Google Scholar
Quimbey, R. S., The Background of Napoleonic Warfare: the theory of military tactics in eighteenth-century France (New York, Columbia University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
Rogers, H. G. B., Tanks in Battle (London, Seeley, 1965).Google Scholar
Rowe, Vivian, The Great Wall of France: the triumph of the Maginot Line (London, Putnam, 1959).Google Scholar
Scott, Martin E. and Lyman, Stanford M., Accounts, American Sociological Review, VII (1968), 701–713.Google Scholar
Scott, Robert A., The Making of Blind Men: a study of adult socialization (New York, Russell Sage, 1969).Google Scholar
Scott, Robert A., The Construction of conceptions of stigma by professional experts, in Douglas, Jack D. (ed.), Deviance and Respectability: the social constructions of moral meanings (New York, Basic Books, 1970), pp. 225–290.Google Scholar
Scull, Andrew T., Mad-doctors and magistrates: English psychiatry's struggle for professional autonomy in the nineteenth century, European Journal of Sociology, XVII (1976), 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, A. G., Tanks: 1914–18 (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1955).Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm I., Schatzman, Leonard, Ehrlich, Danuta, Bucher, Rue and Sabshin, Melvin, The Hospital and its negotiated order, pp. 147–169in Friedson, Elliot (ed.), The Hospital in Modern Society (New York, Free Press, 1963).Google Scholar
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray, The Evolution of the Tank: a record of the royal naval air service caterpillar experiments (London, Hutchinson, 1937).Google Scholar
U.S. Army, Cavalry Field Manual (FM2–15 Washington, War Department, 1941).Google Scholar
U.S. Army, Armored Force Field Manual (FM17–10 Washington, War Department 1942).Google Scholar
Wheldon, J., Machine Age Armies (London, Abeland-Schuman, 1968).Google Scholar
Whitehouse, A., Tank (Garden City, Doubleday, 1960).Google Scholar
Wilson, Andrew, War Gaming (Middlesex, Harmondsworth, 1970).Google Scholar